Hungarian-born,
international billionaire businessman and currency speculator George Soros seems
to glide effortlessly through the chaos of globalization. He’s always at the
big economic summits and politicians around the world hold him in high esteem.
This is because although Soros’s most famous (or infamous) business activity
– currency speculation – is highly predatory, Soros has a double identity. He
is also an ideologist for Humanity.

WHO
IS THAT MYSTERY MAN?

Soros
has been painted as many things – from great humanitarian to Satan. He reminds
me of the title character from a science fiction novel I read many years ago
called The
Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, by the American author Philip K.
Dick. In the book, the New World Order is a formal reality, drugs are legal
and everyone uses them, and it is impossible for the mind-numbed people to escape
the ubiquitous image of multi-billionaire Palmer Eldritch. Coincidentally, Soros
supports the legalization of drugs.

A
quote from Soros’s last book, Open
Society, gives a hint of his personal morality:

Currency
traders sitting at their desks buy and sell currencies of Third World countries
in large quantities. The effect of the currency fluctuations on the people who
live in those countries is a matter that does not enter their minds. Nor should
it; they have a job to do. Yet if we pause to think, we must ask ourselves whether
currency traders (not to use the more incendiary word, speculators) should regulate
the lives of millions.

~
Soros, Open Society

Do
many people still regard the word "speculator" as incendiary, a decade
after the demise of the Soviet Union? "Scumbag" is still an incendiary
word to most people, certainly, but surely not "speculator." But isn’t
it interesting to ponder what Soros is thinking when he says "they have
a job to do"? It’s as if people who get a thrill from debauching the currencies
of entire countries are doing a service to Humanity. They’re teaching the "little
people" a lesson they need to learn. Hey, somebody’s got to do it. Furthermore,
whether it’s they’re goal or not, currency speculators do "regulate"
the lives of millions.

One
thing you can safely say about Soros (apart from the fact that he doesn’t take
criticism well) is that he doesn’t believe in the concept of sovereignty. What
does it mean when Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott – who believes
all countries are "artificial and temporary" – describes Soros as
a "national treasure." Soros is a US citizen, but the dustjacket of
his last book describes him as a "stateless statesman." Maybe Talbott
means that Soros is a treasure of artificiality and temporality, like Strobe?
At any rate, there certainly does seem to be an "artificial and temporary"
quality about George Soros.

However,
it has to be said that Soros isn’t necessarily a bad person just because he
doesn’t believe in national sovereignty. Sovereignty is not purely about
nation-states. Saying that the "sovereignty of the people" is an end
in itself is saying that the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants really
only want to live peacefully – without constant fear of being bombed, molested
or disturbed by the war-for-profit machine. But all indications are that Soros
doesn’t really advocate "popular sovereignty" either.

THE
SOROSIAN IDEOLOGY

From
lofty perches like the economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, the view of democracy
as political power emanating from the common man is obscured by clouds. Democracy
becomes – at best – "government with the consent of the governed."
If I step on your face long and hard enough or send police around to your house
to kick your door down on a regular basis, you might consent to me "governing"
you. But democracy you wouldn’t have. Soros is probably not a big democracy
buff, no matter what he thinks of himself. He advocated a global governmental
role for unelected NATO many years before the bombing of innocents in Yugoslavia,
and before KFOR troops started kicking in doors.

Soros
is supposedly on the "left" – and he finds nationalism repulsive –
but he doesn’t see political power emanating from the common man. He is the
global elitist par excellence. Soros’s left-of-centrism involves knowing what’s
best for the little people. He is one of the big people, and the big people
have the money and the technology that can solve all Humanity’s ills. Soros
claims that his ideology doesn’t have "solutions," which conveniently
allows him to sidestep the responsibility of putting forth anything but sweeping,
nebulous ideas. But he does in fact have vague "solutions." He just
doesn’t call them that.

I
advocate an alliance of democratic states, with a dual purpose. One, to promote
what I call open society. I talk about an alliance of open societies which would
first bolster the development of open societies within individual countries,
because there’s a lot that needs to be done in that effort. And secondly, to
establish basic international law and international institutions that you need
for global, open society. So that’s my sort of broad concept. Now, I have not
worked out the details, because I don’t think it’s for me to work out the details.
It’s for them to work out the details.

The
"details," apparently, are the crumbs of power from the big table
that the squalid little nation-states are left while the enlightened global
elite feast on the big issues. But what is "open society"? It’s "a
society that holds itself open to change and improvement." Hold yourself
open, now, and open wide (or bend over) because we’re coming in. Soros’s "open
society" in practice makes national governments into less than governments.
They can be administrative subdivisions of the new global order and deal with
"details" but they can’t be truly sovereign because that would mean
they weren’t part of the Open Society. Don’t try to keep any secrets from us
enlightened globalists because we control the capital and we will brand you
as "closed" and therefore evil. But since a government without secrets
isn’t really a government, there can be no sovereign governments in the Open
Society.

Soros’s
ideology calls for a civilian "complement" to NATO – the "Open
Society Alliance" – consisting of the US, European Union, and a "critical
mass of democratic countries from the periphery of the capitalist system."
But he never says how it’s supposed to work.

The
Open Society Alliance would be concerned with establishing and preserving those
preconditions: a democratic constitution, the rule of law, freedom of speech
and press, an independent judiciary, and other important aspects of liberty…
The Open Society Alliance would have to establish its own criteria in full awareness
of its own fallibility. It would give each society the greatest possible latitude
in deciding its own character.

~
Soros, Open Society

He
speaks of an "alliance" like it’s a person. How else could it be "in
full awareness of its own fallibility"? And what is the "greatest
possible latitude" supposed to mean? Is Belarus – which he has condemned
– a less "open society" than the Republic of Georgia? I guess that
depends on whether you’re viewing the situation from a Manhattan townhouse or
from inside one of Shevardnadze’s filthy prison cells. For that matter, how
does he define "democratic" and "the rule of law"? Well…
"open society"!

One
of the things lost in the amorphous mass of lofty words and phrases is the notion
that the most important element of freedom in any society is the basic trust
people have in their ability to select their representatives or leaders. Is
it more important that the citizens of a nation-state have confidence that their
votes will count when they cast their ballots, or that the head of state or
government agrees with "open society"? Because the way things are
right now, the United States – which Soros describes as "the greatest open
society in the world" – is entrusting the organization of elections to
figures schooled in a system that used sham elections as evidence of popular
support, funding those people, and congratulating ourselves on the triumph of
democracy and "openness" around the world when they pull off a stunning
victory and continue to do our bidding. If that sort of corrupt imperialism
is compatible with "open society" then I’m setting up the Closed Society
Institute.

THE
SOROSIAN MINISTRY OF PLENTY

A
few years ago, Soros advocated a globally centralized financial clearinghouse
or "international central bank" that would leave money in the hands
of those (i.e., Soros) who really know how to lend it while leaving details
of allocation to nation-states as they’re eroding. From the right-wing perspective,
the problem with this vision is that it offers no substitute for national sovereignty
over the medium of exchange. The image of the Queen of England on the British
currency is not supposed to be merely aesthetic, but to represent collective
faith in the integrity of an institution. From the left-wing perspective, entrusting
management of the common weal to a global "financial elite" doesn’t
sound very egalitarian.

In
Open Society, Soros concedes that his international central bank idea
proved too "radical" at the time. Although he doesn’t say so, it would
finish off what’s left of Western civilization. This is because – leaving aside
the fact that the Sorosian globalist vision does not appeal to traditional Western
notions like duty, honor, courage, decency, loyalty, and so forth – there’s
that little matter of currency as a "legal fiction." The US dollar
is formally backed by the "full faith and credit of the US government"
(the "servant" of the People), but the Sorosian globo-dollar is backed
by…? There isn’t a government with popular confidence to give the Sorosian Central
Bank "Western" integrity. Soros may know that, although he has invested
so much time in putting the legal fiction of his money between himself and ordinary
people that he may have skipped this little "detail." So his global
clearinghouse still feels less like a proper central bank than a global "Gosbank."
Gosbank was the old Soviet institution that monitored all transactions within
the USSR’s "Gosplan" – a sort of "managed chaos" like the
New World Order. However, as long as the New World Order is going to be managed
chaos, why couldn’t Soros be World Minister of Plenty (or something bigger)?
On the bright side, the Sorosian Gosbank would provide a lot of "jobs."
Aspiring applicants may want to start getting fitted for their Outer Party overalls
right now.

A
writer for Rolling Stone asked Soros why any citizen, anywhere in the
world, should trust a remote and powerful governing body acting exclusively
in the interests of global finance. His answer: "I don’t think the broad
swath of Americans are sitting in a very good position to control credit stores
in the world. I mean, it’s a pretty specialized and technical thing." That’s
democracy for you. Damn those stupid proles.

SOROS
AND THE PROLES

I
can already discern the makings of the final crisis… Indigenous political movements
are likely to arise that will seek to expropriate the multinational corporations
and recapture the "national" wealth. Some of them may succeed in the
manner of the Boxer Rebellion or the Zapatista Revolution. Their success may
then shake the confidence of financial markets, engendering a self-reinforcing
process on the downside.

You
are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged
by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are
infinitely malleable. Or perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the
proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind.
They are helpless, like the animals. Humanity is the Party. The others are outside
– irrelevant.

Soros
expresses trepidation about the proles, hinting that a global hierarchy may
be needed to keep them under control, while O’Brien is utterly sure of their
defenselessness. Since O’Brien is the future and Soros is now, Soros may want
to speed up world government and consolidate its civilian and military institutions.
The alternative is for the corrupt political and financial elites to possibly
lose their privileges and be torn to pieces by the angry hordes.

THE
SOROSIAN MINISTRY OF TRUTH

A
careful study of a Soros-sponsored website – Transitions
Online – gives some idea of the ideology of "open society"
in practice. There are lots of "analytical" articles and bits of commentary
on it about the level of "freedom" and "openness" in various
countries, although definitions are skipped. On the recent Czech TV crisis,
for example, Transitions explains that the recently removed director
had "political connections." A media boss with political connections?
Imagine that in America. And Transitions goes on to critique the media
situation in Poland and Slovakia in a similar vein. Media officials aren’t "independent"
– i.e., they’re dependent on the wrong thing. In the US, huge corporate
conglomerates control the media, and employees had better toe the line or they
could find themselves out of a job. That’s "independent." The Transitions
tactic is evidently to constantly pressure and criticize the media in other
countries until they abandon all attempts to define public interest in any way
other than embracing multi-culti globalism and a worship-the-money-god worldview.

The
fact is that all news, even the most basic wire report, has to reflect some
political perspective simply by virtue of emphasizing some events or facts relative
to others. What makes some piece of news more important than another for a given
society? The Sorosians decide because Soros knows he’s right, just as
Lenin knew he was right. But to us little folk, the idea that some "international"
NGO can come into a sovereign country and decide how "independent"
the media is on behalf of the country’s inhabitants is sinister to say the least.

How
about the rule of law? Here is Transitions Online on the Yugoslav Constitution:

[I]n
his conversations with Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic, Kostunica's insistence
that constitutional procedures be strictly followed shows his schizophrenia.
His stance is in line with his views on legalist consistency – if Montenegro
respected the Yugoslav Constitution, secession would not even be an issue. But
his insistence also shows his political inflexibility. The Yugoslav Constitution
was more a private vehicle for Milosevic to stay in power than it was the supreme
law of the land. It is hard to expect that anyone –except Kostunica – could
take it seriously.

"Schizophrenia"?
This passage barely merits comment except to say that it should be for the people
of Yugoslavia to decide whether to take their constitution seriously. Who elected
Soros and his minions? Not me, and not the citizenry of Yugoslavia.

AMERICA,
THE NWO, AND THE SOROSIAN INNER PARTY

In
many ways, the "privilegentsia" of the ex-Soviet Bloc is better suited
to the bureaucratic, NGO-dominated New World Order than the highest elite of
the West. Soros has shown no reluctance to confer legitimacy on and support
ex-nomenklatura figures who have reincarnated themselves as great democrats.
As long as the United States continues to bankroll the major NGOs and slots
the old Eastern Bloc elite into top positions at top salary, it will gradually
build a more and more solid foundation for the political apparat of the post-Western
world – a hybrid of corrupt corporate capitalism and socialism.

George
Soros is a key agent in this process. He has been described as the "stateless
statesman" even though he’s a US citizen, and the United States is really
the perfect state from which Soros could claim citizenship and operate his NGOs
worldwide. The reason is simple: no one is truly "in charge." In Machiavelli’s
timeless work The Prince, a strong, centralized state is seen as the
best guardian of the rights and well-being of the People. Soros claims that
on the national level, this is bad because it isn’t "open society."
That’s why he wants to undermine the benevolent leadership of Alexander Lukashenka
in Belarus. The Belarussian leader is a thorn in the globalists’ side, and hampers
their drive to do away with national sovereignty or popular government.

It
may be a "petty" concern to someone like Soros, but I like the fact
that there are different countries in the world. I don’t want war, but what
a dull world it would be if all the peoples of the world suddenly marched entranced
into a drab, one-world "Open Society." Would all the shysters, charlatans
and tricksters suddenly disappear at the same time? Somehow, we’re expected
to take it on faith that Soros’s global political design – his "Open Society"
– wouldn’t turn into a corrupt, centralized tyranny. That’s why Soros is a false
prophet. In his business he knows the shysters are out there, so he’s too smart
to believe his own vision.

THE
UNITED STATES: A SOCIETY NOT YET "OPEN"

America
is both the problem and the solution at the same time. It is the problem because
it is the engine of the New World Order, pursuing a policy of assimilating states
for the sake of assimilation, and intervening in the internal affairs of foreign
states in every way possible to reify that ideology. And America is the solution
because it is the last truly sovereign entity – the last domino – in the West.

Soros’s
description of the US as "the greatest open society in the world"
doesn’t fit his own definitions, and he surely knows it. Our government still
has secrets, and that means it has sovereign power. Unfortunately for some of
us, it is using that sovereign power to spread junk culture and corrupt corporate
capitalism cloaked in the phony ideology of political correctness and democracy.
It doesn’t take an understanding of Soros mentor Karl Popper’s critique of logical
positivism or his ability to demarcate science from pseudo-science to see that
– logically – the more America makes the other states like itself, the more
it becomes like them. Does anyone but me think that might come back to haunt
us some day?

So
either Soros is a great American patriot who revels in US power because of all
its great cultural accomplishments and the "openness" it’s spreading
in the world, or he’s an American by passport alone, and longs for the day when
America is tossed into the dustbin of History along with the memory of the West.
One thing seems certain though, and that is that Soros wants global assimilation
to continue. Where it will lead is anyone’s guess.

THINK
IT’S SO GROOVY NOW, THAT PEOPLE ARE FINALLY GETTING TOGETHER…

On
February 1, when President George W. Bush held his "National Prayer Breakfast"
at the White House, several foreign dignitaries were invited. Among them were
Milo Djukanovic (US-backed President of Montenegro), Zoran Djindjic (US-backed
Prime Minister of Serbia), and Cacak Mayor Velimir Ilic. Bush has shown every
intention of giving "continuity" to the Clinton administration’s policy
of backing these unpopular figures, who may pray to something but it probably
doesn’t look anything like what Dubya prays to.

Djindjic
is a former professional Marxist philosopher who mixed with the radical left
in Germany in the 1970s, on the fringes of the terrorist Bader-Meinhof Gang
and the Red Army Fraction. Djukanovic and his gang of leather-jacketed spivs
have managed to turn Montenegro into a paradise of "reform" (i.e.,
a dump of corruption) since taking over in a very dubious election in 1997.
Ilic led a band of mercenaries and paid thugs to loot and burn his own country’s
federal parliament building. As for Soros, I still don’t know whether he was
there physically or not but he had to be there in spirit. Last year he established
the first international bank in Djukanovic’s Montenegro with initial capital
of $5 million.

So
far, George W. Bush has said he’s committed to "bringing people together
in Worshington, DC" but other than that, his "vision thing" is
about as vague as his dad’s was. If his dad, Dick Cheney or the CIA’s daily
brief tells him that what’s good for business is good for democracy, he’ll take
it on faith as the word of good Christians. Bush may be a decent man compared
to Clinton, but that really isn’t saying much, is it? Dubya hasn’t really been
anywhere in the world, and for all his affability it’s still hard to avoid the
impression that – on the foreign policy stage, at any rate – he’s anything more
than a shill for Big Oil.

I
didn’t watch the prayer breakfast, and I don’t know if Djukanovic and party
ever even made it. But I couldn’t get one very vivid picture out of my head
when I thought about them attending. It was an image of President Bush with
his head bowed, eyes clenched tight, and his face straining with the full intensity
of his religious faith as the prayer was recited. Meanwhile, Djukanovic and
Djindjic – heads also bowed but eyes not closed – swapped glances at each other
with inaudible sniggering. Words were unnecessary, because the eyes said it
all. We’ve made it, they were saying. We’re finally here. We’ve arrived.

Please
Support Antiwar.com

A contribution
of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-print classic study
of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative
Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to